# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 13 27

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W il li am J. Sh eri da n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 17 , 20 16
Fil ed : J un e 1 3, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W OLLMAN and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1

St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10

, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.W il li am Sh eri da n p le d g ui lt y to on e co un t o f be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a

fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) , and th e di st ric t co ur t 2

se nt en ced hi m to 10 8 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Sh eri da n ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t

co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r an d vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by rel y in g on
he ars ay te st im on y i n t r od uc ed at hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng whi ch di d no t po ss es s

su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty. Hav in g ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, we affi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND

On Ju ne 18 , 2 01 4, Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou r i

, p o l ic e of fic ers res po nd ed to a cal l

rep or ti ng a se xu al as sa ul t. T.S., Sh eri da n’s th en -1 8- y ear- ol d da ug ht er, to ld of fic ers
he r fat he r ha d se xu al ly as sa ul te d he r th e pr ev io us ev en in g. T.S. rep or te d to th e

of fic ers th at he r fat he r ke pt two sh ot gu ns an d a pi st ol in hi s b ed ro om

.

Offi cers ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt fo r Sh eri da n’s res id en ce. In an open ve rti cal

sa fe in Sh eri da n’s be dr oo m , of fic ers fo un d two sh ot gu ns , th ree em pt y gu n m ag azi ne s,

two em pt y ha nd gu n ho ls te rs , a rev ol ve r sp eed lo ad er, a gu n cl ean in g ki t, an d 68 7 li ve

ro un ds of am m

un it io n. In a bl a c k p o u c h u n d er a dr es se r ne xt to Sh eri da n’s be d,

po li ce fo un d a ch ro m e-co lo red .25 -cal ib er se m i-a ut om at ic pi st ol

, whi ch was lo ad ed

wit h si x ro un ds of am m

un it io n. Offi cers ran a cri m in al hi st or y ch eck on Sh eri da n an d

di sc ov ered he was a co nv ic te d fel o n

. Sh eri da n was arre st ed

. In a su bs eq ue nt

in te rv ie w w i t h l a w en fo rcem en t, Sh eri da n ad m it te d al l of th e fir earm s an d

am m un it io n were hi s an d pr ov id ed a de sc rip ti on of ha nd li ng th e se m i- a u t o mat i c pi st ol

.

A fed eral gr an d jury in di ct ed Sh eri d a n o n t h r ee co un ts of be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a f

i r e a r m. On Ju ly 8, 20 15

, Sh eri da n en te red in to a pl ea ag reem en t,

The Hon or ab le Dav id Greg or y Kay s, Ch ie f Judge, U nit ed St ates Dis tri ct Co ur t 2

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-pl ead in g gu il ty to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d res erv in g

hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e ap pl ic at io n of a c r o ss -ref eren ce un de r th e Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es (U.S.S.G. or Gu id el in es ). 3

Gui de li ne s § 2K2 .1(c )(1 ) s t a t e s “ [i]f th e de fen da nt us ed or po ss es se d an y

fir earm or am m

un it io n ci te d in t h e o f

f e n se of co nv ic ti on in co nn ect io n wit h th e

co m m is si on or at te m

pt ed co mm i s s io n of an ot he r of fen se

. . . ap pl y

—(A) § 2X1 .1
(Att em pt

, So li ci ta ti on , or Co ns pi racy) in res pe ct to th at ot he r of fen se , if th e res ul ti ng

of fen se le ve l is gr eat er th an th at de te rm in ed ab ov e.” Bas ed on T.S.’ s al le ga ti on th at

Sh eri d an ha d se xu al ly as sa ul te d he r, th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR )

ap pl ie d a cro ss -ref

eren ce to U.S.S.G. § 2A3 .1 “ Cri m in al Sex u a l A bu se ; Att em pt to

Co m m it Cri m in al Sex ua l Abu se .” Pu rs ua nt to § 2A3 .1(a )(2 ), Sh eri da n’s ba se of fen se
le ve l was 30

. The PSR al so ap pl ie d a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r cau si ng th e vi ct im

to en ga ge in se xu al act s by th reat en in g or pl aci ng th e vi ct im in a st at e of fear

, a two

le ve l en ha nc em en t be cau se T.S

. w a s un de r Sh eri da n’s care , an d a th ree- le ve l

red uc ti on fo r Sh eri da n ’s a c c ep ta nc e of res po ns ib il it y —re su lt in g in a to ta l of

fen se
le ve l of 33

. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2A3 .1(b )(1 ), (3 ), 3E1 .1(a ), (b ). W it h a cri m in al hi st or y

cat eg or y of II, Sh eri da n’s cal cu la te d ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s im pr is on m en t ran ge was

15 1 to 18 8 m on th s im

pr iso nm en t, bu t be cau se th at ex ceed ed th e st at ut or il y au th or iz ed

m ax im um se nt en ce, th e ad

vis or y Gui de li ne s se nt en ce was 12 0 m on th s. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 9 24 (a)( 2) ; U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .1(a ).

Sh eri da n co nt es te d th e PSR’s fac t u a l fin di ng s al le gi ng Sh eri da n se xu al ly

ab us ed or th reat en ed T.S. an d fil ed an un op po se d m ot io n to co nt in ue hi s se nt en ci ng
da te in an ti ci pa ti on of th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ci ng DNA te st im on y in su pp or t of th e

cro ss -ref eren ce. At Sh eri da n’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng on Ja nu ary 25

, 20 16

, th e

Alt ho ug h th e go ve rn m en t as se rts Sh eri da n’s ap pe al te ch ni cal ly is no t co ve red 3 by th e pl ea ag reem en t’s ex cep ti on , it h a s ag reed to waiv e an y rel ia nc e on th at

arg um en t.

-3

-go ve rn m en t cal le d fo ur wit ne ss es in vo lv ed in Sh eri da n’s in ve st ig at io n. T.S. di d no t

te st ify, an d th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ad dr es s whe th er T.S. was un av ai la bl e. Sh eri da n’s

co un se l ob

ject e d t o th e fir st go ve rn m en t wit ne ss , arg ui ng th e ex pe ct ed he ars ay

te st im on y vi ol at ed Sh eri da n’s li m it ed du e-p ro ces s rig ht s an d de p r i v e d h im of th e

op po rtu ni ty to co nf

ro nt hi s accu se r. The di st ric t co ur t ove rr ule d Sh er ida

n’ s ob jecti on ,

an d Dete ct iv e Cl in t Fren ch of th e K an sa s Ci ty po li ce de pa rtment’s in te rn al affa irs

di vi si on pro ceed ed to tes ti fy

.

Fo ll owi ng T.S.’ s 9 1 1 c a ll on Ju ne 18

, Dete ct iv e Fren ch m et T.S. in th e

eme r g e nc y ro om of th e ho sp it al whe re T.S. was un de rg oi ng a se xu al -as sa ul t

ex am in at io n. Dete ct iv e F r e n c h te st ifi ed T.S. to ld hi m th at aro un d 10 :3 0 p.m

. th e

ni gh t be fo re, Sh eri da n su m m on ed T.S. to hi s be dr oo m an d to ld he r he wan te d he r to

“ ru b so m et hi ng .” Dete ct iv e Fren ch st at ed T.S. sa id th at “ us ua ll y m ean [t] se xu al act s

are go in g to

. . . ha pp en aft er th at .” T.S. th en wen t to Sh eri da n’s be dr oo m , rem ov ed

he r cl ot hi ng whe n Sh eri da n to ld he r to do so , an d th en be ga n to pe rfo rm or al se x on
Sh eri da n. Sheri da n fo rci bl y att em pt ed to pe ne tra te T.S. ana ll y bu t d id no t su ccee d.

T.S. to ld Dete ct iv e Fren ch th at Sh eri da n kep t a “ sm al l sil ve r pi st ol ” in hi s b ed ro om

an d sh e was afra id Sh eri da n wou ld sh oo t he r wit h it if sh e di d no t pe rfo rm th os e act s.

T.S. al so to ld Dete ct iv e Fren ch th at Sh eri da n ha d th reat en ed to sh oo t an d ki ll T.S. if

T. S

. t o l d an y on e ab ou t th e se x act s. Dete ct iv e Fren ch de sc rib ed T.S.’ s de m ean o r
du rin g t he in te rv ie w as “ up se t an d o bv io us ly em ot io na l.”

The go ve rn m en t cal le d Dete ct iv e Eric a Old ha m ne x t

. Ove r Sh eri da n’s

co nt in ui ng ob

jecti on to he ars ay , th e di st ric t co ur t pe rm it t e d D e t e ct iv e Old ha m to

te st ify ab ou t th e in te rv ie w sh e co nd uc te d wit h Sh eri da n’s ne ig hb or , Ran dy W ed lo w.

W ed lo w de sc rib ed to Dete ct iv e Old ha m a n i nc id en t th at ha d oc cu rred fiv e da y s
be fo re T.S. cal le d th e po li ce to rep or t th e se xu al as sa ul t in whi ch W ed lo w wit ne ss ed

Sh eri da n y el l ou t to T.S. fro m in si de hi s ho m e, cal li ng he r a bi tc h an d te ll in g he r “ sh e

ne ed ed to co m e in si de an d fix di nn er an d do th e di sh es .” On Mo nd ay , Ju ne 16

, a few

da y s aft er th at in ci de nt

, T.S. “ rev eal ed [to W ed lo w] th at he r fat he r ha d be en se xu al ly

-4

-as sa ul ti ng he r

. . . s in ce sh e was a b o u t 1 2 ye a r s ol d” by fo rci ng he r to pe rfo rm or al

se x an d ha ve se xu al in te rco ur se

. W ed lo w t o l d T.S. he wou ld he lp he r co nt act th e

po li ce whe n sh e was read y

. On Ju ne 18

, T.S. cam e to W ed l o w a n d t o ld hi m th e

pr ev io us ev en in g Sh eri da n fo rced he r to “ ru b hi s feet

, pe rfo rm or al se x, an d

. . . tri ed

to pe ne tra te he r ag ai n bu t was un su cces sf ul .” W ed lo w he lp ed T.S. cal l th e po li ce th at

da y

.

And rew Atk in so n, fo ren si c sp eci al is t fo r th e po li ce de pa rtme n t c r im e

la bo rat or y , te st ifi ed to rep or t th e res ul ts of a DNA te st co m pa rin g swa bs fro m T.S.’ s

to ng ue , li p, face , a nd up pe r th ig hs to swa bs co ll ect ed fro m Sh eri da n. At ki ns on di d

no t fin d an y m al e DNA on th e to ng ue swa b, bu t ex pl ai ne d th e te st of T.S.’ s face an d

l i p di d sh ow Sh eri da n was a po te nt ia l co nt rib ut or to a m in or ge ne ti c pr of il e

. Th e

li ke li ho od th at an y ran do m in di vi du al wou ld be a m at ch was on e in ei gh t. The te st in g

of T.S.’ s up pe r th ig h sam pl e sh owe d Sh eri da n ag ai n was a po ss ib le co nt rib ut or , bu t

Atk in so n s ai d 5 7 p erce nt of t he po pu la ti on als o wo ul d b e a p os si bl e co nt rib ut or

.

Dete ct iv e Ja m e s S o l a w as th e go ve rn m en t’s fin al wit ne ss

. Dete ct iv e So la

te st ifi ed th at as pa rt of th e in ve st ig at io n in to Sh eri da n, he in te rv ie wed Luc in da

Sh eri da n, who is T.S.’ s si st er an d Sh eri da n’s da ug ht er. Dete ct iv e So la st at ed Luc in da

sa id th is “ was th e fir st ti m e th at sh e ha d ev er he ard of th es e al le ga ti on s” a g ai ns t

Sh eri da n, an d whe n Dete ct iv e So la as ke d why T.S. m ig ht fab ric at e th es e al le ga ti on s,

Luc in da sp ecu la te d T.S. was no t pe rfo rm in g ta sk s at ho m e in th e w a y h e r f a t he r

ex pe ct ed

. Dete ct iv e So la al so te st ifi ed ab ou t th e rep or t pr ep ared by th e pa tro l of fic er
who res po nd ed to th e 91 1 cal l. Dete ct iv e So la te st ifi ed Luc in da to ld th e pa tro l of fic er

th at T.S. ha d pr ev io us ly al le ge d Sh eri da n ha d se xu al ly ab us ed he r whe n T.S. was in

m id dl e sc ho ol

, bu t no fu rth er act io n a g a i n s t Sh eri da n was ta ke n. On cro ss

e x a m in at io n, Dete ct iv e So la te st ifi ed th at th e pa tro l of fic er’s rep or t st at ed T.S

. h a d

al le ge d th at Sh eri da n ha d al so se xu al ly ab us ed Luc in da si nc e sh e en te red pu be rty, bu t

Luc in da de ni ed th at all eg at io n.

-5

-At t he clo se of t he he ari ng , th e d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d:

I n m y m in d, th is —ev en th ou gh it ’s he ars ay ev id en ce, it i s

un co nt ro ve rte d, an d I am go in g to fin d th at th e g ov ern m en t m et th ei r lo w bu rd en of pr oo f by th e pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. You kn ow, th e DNA ev id en ce I th in k . . . th at it wasn ’t r eal ly t ha t he lp fu l be cau se
pe op le li ve in th e sa m e ho us es , no t un co m m o n , a nd cert ai nl y th e

nu m be rs weren ’t ve ry m ean in gf ul to th e Co ur t. Bu t it was co ns is te nt wit h s om eo ne ha vi ng co nt act , po ss ib ly, wit h t he de fen da nt

.

So at th is ti m e, I am go in g to ov erru le y ou r ob jecti on

. I’m go in g to fin d
th e cro ss -ref

eren ce i s ap pr op ria te ba se d o n th e ev id en ce I hear d b y th e
pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.

The di st r i c t c o u rt co m

m en te d, “ Eve n no twi th st an di ng th e cro ss -ref eren ce, th e fact

th at so m eo ne wit h [Sh eri da n’s] cri m in al hi st or y ha d th ree gu n s i n th e ho us e [is ]

c on cern in g to th e Co ur t.” “ [C]on si de r[i ng ] al l th e fact or s un de r 18 U.S

. C

. § 35 53 (a),” th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d do wnwar d an d se nt en ced Sh eri da n to 10 8 m on th s

im pr is on m en t to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly wi t h a n y se nt en ce im po se d in a pe nd in g st at e

pr os ecu ti on

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Sh eri da n ap pe al s, arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t (1 ) co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by

ap pl y in g th e cro ss -ref

eren ce to U.S.S.G. § 2A3 .1 an d su bs eq ue nt fo ur - an d two -le ve l

en ha nc em en ts ; an d (2 ) vi ol at ed Sh eri da n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e hi s

a c c u s e r

. W e ex am in e th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n an d in te rp ret at io n of t h e
Gui de li ne s de no vo an d it s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear e r r or

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Tim be rla ke

, 67 9 F.3 d 10 08

, 10 11 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). W e be gi n wit h th e un de rs ta nd in g

th at th e Ru le s of Evi de nc e ex pr es sl y “ do no t ap pl y to

. . . s en te nc in g” pr oc eed in gs

. Fed

. R. Evi d. 11 01 (d )(3 ). “ W he n a pr op er ob jecti on is m ad e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co ns id erat io n of

. . . he ars ay ev id en ce, we rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d

St at es v. Woo ds , 18 3 F . App ’x 59 2, 5 94 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (pe r cu ria m ).

-6

-Sh eri da n co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by rel y in g o n he ars ay te st im on y

be cau se it di d no t po ss es s su ffi ci en t i nd ic ia of rel ia bi li ty. In res ol vi ng di sp ut ed 4

is su es of fact du rin g a cri m in al se nt e nc in g, a di st ric t co ur t is pe rm it te d to rel y on
rel ev an t he ars ay or ot he r ev id en ce “ wit ho ut reg ard to it s ad m is si bi li ty un de r th e ru le s

of ev id en ce ap pl ic ab le at tri al ,” so lo ng as th at ev id en ce po ss es se s “ su ffi ci en t in di ci a

of rel ia bi li ty to su pp or t its pr ob ab le accu racy.” U.S.S.G. § 6A1 .3(a ). Thi s in cl ud es

un co rro bo rat ed he ars ay if th e de fen da nt ha s th e op po rtu ni ty to res po nd to an d reb ut

th e te st im on y

. See Uni te d S t a t e s v. Prat t, 55 3 F.3 d 11 65

, 11 70 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

“‘Th e d et erm in at io n of whe th er he ars ay ev id en ce is su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e t o

su pp or t a se nt en ci ng de c i s i o n de pe nd s on th e fact s of th e pa rti cu la r cas e, an d is

co m m it te d to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es

v. Cas si dy, 6 F.3 d 55 4, 55 7 (8 th Ci r.19 93 )). I n rev ie win g th e rel ia bi li ty o f he ars ay

an d do ub le he ars ay ev id en ce, we ha ve co ns id ered fact or s su ch as th e co ns is te nc y of

th e he ars ay te st im on y , th e ti m in g an d na tu re of th e d e c la ran t’s st at em en ts

, an d th e
wit ne ss ’s im

pr es si on s of th e de cl aran t’s de m ean or , as well as ot he r c o r ro bo rat in g

ev id en ce. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Farm er, 5 6 7 F

. 3 d 3 4 3, 34 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(ag reei ng wit h th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng in a rev oc at io n he ari ng th at th e se xu al

as sa ul t vi ct im ’s st at em en t to of fic ers m ad e s h o r t ly aft er th e as sa ul t was rel ia bl e
be cau se “ th e ev en t was fres h in he r m em or y ”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Sh ack el fo rd

, 46 2 F.3 d

79 4, 79 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (o bs erv i n g h e ars ay st at em en ts rep or te d at th e se nt en ci ng
he ari ng were “ co ns is te nt ” an d co rro bo rat ed by th e po li ce rep or t); Uni te d St at es v.

W al la ce, 40 8 F.3 d 10 46

, 10 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (d eci di ng th at a 91 1 cal l fro m th e
vi ct im an d th e vi ct im ’s st at em en t an d gr an d jury te st im on y were su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e

“ fo r us e in se nt en c i n g,” an d no ti ng ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce co rro bo rat ed th os e

Sh eri da n as se rts th at wit ho ut th e un la wfu l ap pl ic at io n of th e cro ss -ref eren ce, 4

an d as su m in g th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve ap pl ie d a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e
po ss es si on of th ree f

i r e a r ms , hi s to ta l of

fen se le ve l wou ld ha ve be en 16 an d hi s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ran ge wou ld ha ve be en 24 to 30 m on th s. See U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1

.

-7

-st at em en ts ); Uni te d St at es v. Kni fe, 9 F.3 d 70 5, 70 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (d et erm in in g th e

se nt en ci ng he ars ay st at em en ts were “ co rro bo rat ed in pa rt by [th e d efen da nt ’s] lat er

te st im on y , by m ed ic al reco rd s, an d by th e vi ct im ’s pu bl ic co nd uc t” ). Co m pa re Uni te d

St at es v. Fen ne ll

, 65 F.3 d 81 2, 81 3 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 95 ) (co nc lu di ng se nt en ci ng he ars ay

ev id en ce di d no t po s s e s s s uf fic ie nt in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty be cau se (1 ) no swo rn

affi da vi t was pr ep ared ; (2 ) th e in te rv ie w was co nd uc te d ov er th e ph on e, de pr iv in g th e

of fic er of th e op po rtu ni ty to “ ob se rv e [th e vi ct im ’s] de m ean or ”; an d (3 ) th ere was no

ot he r ev id e n c e in th e reco rd “ co rro bo rat [in g] th e acco un t gi ve n [to ] th e [PSR ]

pr ep ari ng of

fic er”) wit h Uni te d St at es v. Farn swo rth

, 92 F.3 d 10 01

, 10 10 (1 0t h Ci r.

19 96 ) (d is ti ng ui sh in g Fen ne ll on th e gr ou nd s th at th e ch al le ng ed he ars ay st at em en ts

were no t m ad e ov er th e te le ph on e, bu t were m ad e in pe rs o n to th e in ve st ig at in g

of fic er co nt em

po ran eo us to arre st ).

Bec au se T.S. di d no t te st ify at Sh eri da n’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t

in tro du ced he r al le ga ti on s of se xu al ab us e th ro ug h wit ne ss es in vo lv ed in th e

in ve st ig at io n. W hi le we ag ree wit h Sh eri da n’s as se rti on t h a t th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t

5

hi m was no t “ un co nt ro ve rte d,” as th e di st ric t co ur t p ut it , we f in d no cl ear ab us e of

di sc r e t io n in ad m is si on of th e he ars ay ev id en ce an d ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng

en ha nc em en t.

The co ns is te nt na tu re an d ti m in g of T.S.’ s al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t Sh eri da n su pp or t

th ei r rel ia bi li ty. T.S. rep or te d a vi rtu al ly id en ti cal acco un t of th e sp eci fic se xu a l

as sa ul t th at oc cu rred th e ni gh t be fo re sh e cal le d 91 1 to he r ne ig hb or , W ed lo w, th e da y
aft er th e as sa ul t ha d oc cu rred

, an d to Dete ct iv e Fren ch

, who in te rv ie wed T.S. as sh e

was rece iv in g a se xu al as sa ul t ex am in at io n. The de te ct iv e was ab le to ob se rv e T.S.’ s
de m ean or , des cri bi ng th at de m ean or to th e d is tri ct co ur t.

The go ve rn m en t di d no t pr ov id e an y reas on to th e di st ric t co ur t why T.S. di d 5

n o t t e s ti fy

, an d whe n we in qu ire d at or al arg um en t, th e go ve rn m en t refe ren ced th e
pe nd in g s ta te pro se cu ti on ag ai ns t Sh eri da n.

-8

-Alt ho ug h m uc h of th e ev id en ce in tro du ced at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng rel at ed to

T.S.’ s ge ne ral al le ga ti on s of Sh eri da n’s se xu al as sa u l t

, t h e d is tri ct co ur t al so was

req ui red to fin d Sh eri da n “ us ed or po ss es se d [th e] fir earm or am m un it io n ci te d

. . . in

co nn ec t i o n w it h” co m

m is si on of th e se xu al as sa ul t. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1(c )(1 ).

The re ar e two st at em en ts th at su pp or t th e di st ric t cou rt’s fin di ng

. Dete ct iv e Fre nc h

te st ifi ed th at T.S. ha d to ld hi m (1 ) sh e was afra id Sh eri da n wou ld sh oo t he r wit h th e

sm al l, si lv er pi st ol reco ve red ne ar Sh eri da n’s be d if sh e di d no t co mp l y w i t h hi s

s e x u al de m an ds ; an d (2 ) Sh eri da n ha d th reat en ed to sh oo t an d ki ll he r if sh e t o l d

an y on e ab ou t th e se x act s. Keep in g in mi n d th e br oa d de fere nc e we affo rd to th e
di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s, we do no t p e r c e i v e a ny cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fi nd in gs

.

Sh er i d a n ne xt co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e on he ars ay te st im on y
vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co nf ro nt an d cro ss -ex am in e hi s accu se r. W hi le

th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se pr ot ect s cri m in al de fen da nt s fr o m th e “ ad m is si on of

te st im on ia l st at em en ts of a wit ne ss w h o di d no t ap pe ar at tri al un le ss [s ]he was

un av ai la bl e to te st ify,” Crawf or d v. W as hi ng to n, 54 1 U.S. 36

, 53 -5 4 (2 00 4)

, we ha ve
he ld “ th e Co nf

ro nt at io n Cl au se do es no t ap pl y at se nt en ci ng he ari ng s,” Uni te d St at es
v. Fl eck , 41 3 F .3d 88 3, 8 94 (8t h C ir. 20 05 ); acco rd W al la ce, 40 8 F .3d at 1 04 8, an d

we are bo un d by su ch pr eced en t, se e Owsl ey v. Lue bb ers , 28 1 F.3 d 68 7, 69 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ [O]ne pa ne l is bo un d by th e d e c i s i o n o f a pr io r pa ne l.”)

. Sh eri da n’s Si xt h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e m us t b e d is m is se d.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fi nd in g n o c le ar er ro r or ab us e o f di sc ret io n, we af fir m Sh eri da n’s s en te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-